(www.reuters.com)

386 points italophil | 1 comments | 10 Dec 25 00:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.198s | source

Show context

dsevil ◴[11 Dec 25 01:42 UTC] No.46226646[source]▶

I've seen some comments about how Times New Roman was replaced with something else to improve readability by many.

There's an irony: the _Times_ (of London) commissioned it in 1932 to improve the readability of its newspaper, which previously used a Didone/Modern style typeface.

I like Times New Roman and I find Calibri, a rounded-corner sans serif, to be an absolute abomination of milquetoast typography.

replies(6): >>46227121 #>>46227806 #>>46228823 #>>46229093 #>>46229275 #>>46229447 #

1. dghf ◴[11 Dec 25 09:48 UTC] No.46229447[source]▶

>>46226646 #

As others have said, Times New Roman was specifically designed for newspapers:

* condensed glyph widths, for ease of setting in narrow columns

* high x-heights and short ascenders and descenders, so lines can be set tighter and more text thus fitted on the page

* robust forms and serifs to allow for the tendency of newsprint to absorb and spread ink

These features don't necessarily translate to improved readability in other contexts.

↑

Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri